Universities once again find themselves in the crosshairs of a political argument around migration.
I suspect no one on these pages needs convincing of the benefits international students bring to the UK: the diversity and vibrancy they add to our campuses, the fees that help our finances add up so we can carry out research and teach home students, the wider economic impact they bring through their fees and their spending in the UK economy, and the long term soft power of goodwill and friendship that our international alumni generate.
And there is plenty of public opinion research – for example from Public First and UUK in 2023, from King’s College London in 2024, and from British Future in 2025 – that shows that the British public supports international student migration, thinks it brings economic benefits, and doesn’t see cutting numbers as a priority.
But we have to be clear that we are losing the political argument on the value of international students – as have our HE colleagues in Canada, Australia and the US in recent months.
A local industry
This is the case despite the hard facts we have about the positive impacts of international students, including the £42 billion aggregate (2021–22 numbers) annual economic benefit estimated by London Economics. But those facts may not be enough as the political climate changes; we need to be agile in responding to where the political debate is moving.
For example, we understand that the aggregate economic impact of international students is not disputed within the government. But they are not convinced that positive impacts are felt at the local level. So what do these big, aggregate numbers mean for citizens at the local level? To address that question, the University of York commissioned some rapid work from Public First – building on the London Economics modelling – to show the benefits of international students at constituency level, both as an export industry, and in their impact on domestic living standards.
The first part of this work was published a few weeks ago at the heart of the debate around the final stages of the immigration white paper. This showed that international higher education is one of our most important export industries. This was counterintuitive for many politicians – who generally think of exports as goods or services which we trade overseas. But in fact, every international student coming and living in the UK is an “export” – bringing in foreign currency and supporting our economy.
Politicians rightly champion our other UK exports – our cars, our pharmaceuticals, our creative industries. But across the country, higher education is just as, if not more important. We showed that in 26 parliamentary constituencies around the country, higher education is the single largest export industry – and it is in the top three in a total of 102 constituencies, spread around the country. To put it another way, in many towns and cities, higher education is the car plant, or the steel mill, or the pharmaceuticals factory that drives local economies.
We hear that this evidence of real local impact was significant within Whitehall, and contributed to seeing off some of the wider proposals for restricting student flows that could have been in the immigration white paper.
Pounds in pockets
The second half of this research, published today, takes on some of the critique we know has been advanced in government in recent months: that while students may bring economic value in some abstract, aggregate way at national level, there are costs that are felt locally in our towns and cities that reduce living standards.
Our analysis comprehensively debunks that. Instead, we show that international students are net contributors to the taxpayer, and that at the local level they raise wages and living standards for domestic residents. We calculate that every worker in the UK has higher wages to the value of almost £500 a year purely as a result of international students’ economic contribution. And in more than 100 constituencies, the benefit is much larger, equating to more than two and a half weeks’ wages for the average worker.
These local-level impacts are often well-recognised by MPs and councillors. They are not yet in national-level debate. So we will continue to make the case for the wider benefits of international students for our towns and cities as well as abstract national GDP figures.
In addition, we need to push back against the misguided assumptions in the white paper that the proposed new international students levy would have only a minor impact on recruitment, and show in detail why the reduction in numbers would be large, and carry with it an economic loss that would go way beyond universities’ gates and into their local communities. We are pleased to be working alongside colleagues in the sector to do just that.
In all this we need to recognise the politics of the moment. All governments are political. That is how they got there, and to be so isn’t wrong! We have a government focused at the moment on its electoral prospects, and many of its actions can be explained by a drive to keep its voting coalition together, especially with the insurgent threat of Reform, and especially on the highly politicised issue of migration.
Universities are well advised to steer clear of party politics. As a vice chancellor, I work without fear or favour to support the needs of staff and students, but also the city and communities around York. But my academic background is as a political scientist so I’m a keen observer of how universities, migration, and their intersection have electoral significance. So, looking at the 100 constituencies we identify in our research which benefit the most from international students either as an export, or in rising domestic wages, it is noteworthy that over 80 per cent of those constituencies are currently held by Labour MPs, often by very narrow margins.
In those and the many other constituencies where international students bring real, tangible economic benefits, it is important that local citizens and political representatives understand what is at stake when widely held public concerns about migration lead to the targeting a group – international students – who the public both think highly of, and who make a big contribution to local economies.
The figures speak for themselves, but the local communities don’t care about figures, they care about their local Co-Op being stocked up, being able to get parking spaces and creating communities. More needs to be done on integration and infrastructure if you are going to convince local residents of the benefits of international students. For example allowing residents to use the often half empty uni bus where I live, dissolved a lot of the negativity around it being a waste of money and adding to the pollution and traffic in the area.
How far does the research consider the impact of dependents of international students? The argument I’ve heard back from non-university friends when talking about the impact of international students is crudely put: the students themselves are beneficial, but once they’ve brought their partner and children they’re a net drain on resources.
Its doubtful they would be a drain as the dependents don’t get any state support. Since only a very small number of research students will now be able to do this, its not a relevant factor for policy decisions going forwards.
Well if you see people as drain on resources, the ones who are likely to go back to their home country after a couple of years, they will see there time at the University in the UK as a drain. Not only will they not encourage people to come to UK HEIs, but they won’t do business with us in future (bearing in mind a UK degree in some countries can indicate existing or future power). It is a ready made cultural exchange, you can keep schools open, you can open horizons, you can bring young families and life to areas that are (literally) dying of old age. Of course we could view Wales or Northern Ireland as a drain because of the weight of the public purse – the simple answer is you got to spend money to make money, and letting people bring families will probably attract more money. Or you can letter London have them and keep them, and they will make more money, and won’t distribute around the UK.
I feel there are some factors you neglected to consider. As you have expanded York university you have thoughtlessly passed on economic and social externalities to the wider community.
Your university no doubt benefits from the additional fees, but in so doing, you have contributed to the studentification of York, where it is no longer a shared space. Increasingly, housing stock is gobbled up and locals are driven out.
Consequently, York now has a far more transient population and your own staff can’t even afford to live here. Some of your cleaning staff are travelling in from as far away as Leeds, while support staff and young academics look to not-so-nearby towns like Selby and Wakefield for affordable housing. Where we once had native communities in the surrounding suburbs we now have student ghettos – and you are making everything worse.
This massively contributes to congestion around York, and because students don’t pay council tax, we locals have to make up the shortfall in parking fees and higher business rates, meaning that small independent shops are gradually moving out. York is losing its essential character and is being redeveloped to accommodate yet more students, so that parts of the town now look no different to anywhere else in in UK.
Furthermore, the consequence of a more transient population is that York is increasingly shabby, and a magnet for low skill migrants who provide Deliveroo style services to students – further contributing to crime and overcrowding. Your semi-retired top professors working from Barcelona probably haven’t noticed this.
Nobody asked us if we consented to this change. You say “We calculate that every worker in the UK has higher wages to the value of almost £500 a year purely as a result of international students’ economic contribution”. I’m sure it doesn’t occur to you that, even in the current economic climate, many would gladly pay £500 a year to not have their hometown turned into yet another soulless, alien student slum. That said, I don’t think your numbers stack up. You don’t take into account the commuting costs for staff and native students who can’t afford to live in the area – largely thanks to you.
Your arguments in favour of international students are all economic arguments, but this is precisely the kind of ghoulish accountancy that contributes to the sense of growing political disaffection – as though GDP is the only metric worth considering.
You also note that “looking at the 100 constituencies we identify in our research which benefit the most from international students either as an export, or in rising domestic wages, it is noteworthy that over 80 per cent of those constituencies are currently held by Labour MPs, often by very narrow margins”.
This also is not a good thing. You are essentially contributing to gerrymandering where locals no longer have meaningful representation. York’s MP panders to juvenile student politics, and the concerns of locals are completely overlooked. The politics of York is more preoccupied with the welfare of “refugees” and the Gaza conflict than whether we have functioning local services. York natives are increasingly voiceless.
It’s curious that you should have commissioned research on this matter without picking up on any of this resentment. It must be very poor research. Or is it that you elected to ignore it in order to keep building your empire?
Because you’ve based your expansion and growth plans on exponential numbers of students, and because you failed to anticipate the crunch, all your plans are collapsing. That’s all on you, and your lack of foresight. The people of York should not be driven out in order to keep your failed business model in operation. Surely even you must realise that there is a maximum absorptive capacity for a small town like York, and that flooding the last remaining English places with foreigners is only going to exacerbate resentment over immigration – especially when so many foreign students only come with a view to obtaining indefinite leave to remain.
The University of York undeniably contributes to the economic and social life of the city, but the city does not exist solely to serve your bottom line. It’s our home first. You would be wise not to forget that. I would ask, rather than cramming foreign students in, why don’t you look at using your facilities to upskill our own people? I note that most of your lecture halls are empty after 5pm. It suggests you are not fully utilising the assets you have. Reliance on foreign students speaks to a lack of creativity, imagination and loyalty.
The (robust) economic argument failed in the 2016 Brexit vote, and with Reform polling strongly, I doubt that another one-dimensional economic impact report on international students is going to be helpful. The sector needs to see beyond this and engage in an objective discussion on the impact (pros and cons) on local communities and investment in property, in order to build a consensus that the public (and so politicians) can support.
The problem is that the investment international students are perceived to have driven is too easily viewed as “bad” by local communities. Take accomodation:
– the 8-storey student accom being built in the very centre of my local area which will dwarf every other building, and will sit as “yet another” building in the local area dedicated to students (who are perceived to be mostly international).
– the example of “economic benefits” cited by a former VC at a recent conference: the Chinese student whose parents bought her a flat in a new devolopment and then bought two more for them to use when visiting.
How does this look to local people who want, but cannot find, affordable accomodation and observe significant investment into large student “blocks” or being priced out of local options?
A key point is that investment will follow the path of greatest return – and so on just this one area a fundamental question remains about how the wider market for homes is affected by the displacement of property investment into student accomodation.